Pat wouldn't like this Postman...

I picked up Neil Postman's The Disappearance of Childhood knowing that it was going to be a little out of date, but I thought it might still have some useful information about the changing nature of children's television. Instead, what I found was quite frankly a load of hand-wringing, Daily Mail-esque nonsense.

The central point of the book is that:

Children are a group of people who do not know certain things that adults know. In the Middle Ages there were no children, because there existed no means for adults to know exclusive information. In the Age of Gutenberg, such a means developed. In the Age of Television, it is dissolved.

(Postman 1982:85)

In other words, there was little difference between children and adults in the Middle Ages, because all information was transmitted orally, so as soon as children mastered speech, there was nothing that they had to learn to distinguish them from adults. When printing was invented, however, information could be put in books, and children would be unable to access this information until they learned to read, therefore creating a distinction between childhood and adulthood. But now that we have visual media, there is less need for literacy; children can see and comprehend anything they like through video, therefore the difference between childhood and adulthood is being destroyed.

What a load of bullshit.

Let's look at his arguments for the "non-existence" of childhood in medieval times: (1) children had to work, (2) children were punished by law equally to adults, and even executed, and (3) children were depicted as mini-adults in art. Well: (1) Children have had to work for the majority of history, and in many regions of the world they still do. This isn't because the children are regarded as "adults"; it's a matter of survival for the family. I'm sure that medieval English parents wanted their children to be children, just as much as modern Bangladeshi parents do. (2) This is just the way the world worked, and has nothing to do with the "literacy" theory. The first law banning execution of children wasn't made until 1908, and this was a long time after the introduction of compulsory schooling. (3) Artists weren't stupid; they didn't think that children were "mini-adults". Medieval art was nearly entirely religious in nature, so the only child you are likely to find in those paintings is the baby Jesus. Yes, baby Jesus was depicted as a tiny adult, but this is due to the "homunculus" doctrine at the time, which stated that Jesus was born "perfectly formed" and was therefore already an adult.

Furthermore, Postman's idea that in medieval times, childhood ended at age 7, once the child had mastered speech and therefore had access to all the information he needed, is equally ridiculous. Childhood, after all, is a physiological stage: a child is a human which is sexually immature and unable to reproduce. It is therefore plainly obvious that a child would have been regarded as "different" from an adult at least until puberty, based on his appearance and unsuitability for marriage. Never mind the fact that a seven-year-old is unable to fend for himself, and relies on his parents for help.

I could go on, but I won't. The whole crux of the book -- that there was no concept of childhood until children were sent to school to learn how to read -- is easily disproven as complete and utter hogwash.

His theories on media are therefore built on a faulty premise: that childhood depends on literacy, and that visual media will erase both the need for literacy and the existence of childhood.

Postman argues that "watching television not only requires no skills but develops no skills [...] there is no such thing on TV as children's programming. Everything is for everybody." (Postman 1982:79). Once again, his logic is idiotic. Yes, the simple act of having your eyes open and observing what is happening on a screen requires no skills, but comprehension does. Things we take for granted, such as making sense of editing to understand the relationship between shots, even understanding the difference between a programme and commercials, are skills which have to be learned. A child can watch the news, but will not understand it because (1) it is not visually engaging and will therefore not hold his attention, (2) he will not understand much of the vocabulary, and (3) has no context in which to put the newsreader's words. A child can watch an adult drama but will not understand it because he does not have enough experience of the world to relate to the characters. He can even watch pornography and will not understand what the people are doing to each other. On the other hand, children's programming has been specifically scripted and designed so that developmentally appropriate information is presented to the young audience in an unambiguous, easily understood manner.

In conclusion, Postman does not know what he is talking about, and his predictions have failed to come true. In the 35 years since the book was written, the culture of childhood has actually become much more isolated from the culture of adulthood: with the advent of narrowcasting, streaming, and personal devices, children and adults are both watching content that has been designed specifically for them, to the extent that adults often have no idea what children are talking about. We are more protective than ever of children, with many laws governing their rights; children's literature remains as popular as ever, and we are spending longer in education and training, meaning that the age of adulthood is actually, in effect, increasing.

What a waste of time.

POSTMAN, N. (1982). The Disappearance of Childhood. New York: Vintage Books.